| From: | Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Naomi Walker <nwalker(at)eldocomp(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "P(dot) Dwayne Miller" <dmiller(at)espgroup(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Backup and Recovery |
| Date: | 2001-06-21 10:01:29 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0106211050590.11353-100000@sphinx.mythic-beasts.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Naomi Walker wrote:
> >You are aware that you can still lose up to (by default) 16Mb
> >worth of transactions in this scheme, I presume?
>
> I'm just starting with Postgresql, but, I thought with fsync on this
> was not the case. Is that not true or what else did I miss?
I suppose that it rather depends on how you expected to
move the logs over. My approach was to archive the redo
when PG is done with them and only then to roll them
forward.
If a catastrophe occurs, then I wouldn't be able to do
anything with a half-full log.
Our Oracle setups use redo logs of only 1Mb for this
reason, and it doesn't seem to hurt too much (though
Oracle's datafile formats seem a fair bit denser than
Postgres's).
Matthew.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Einar Karttunen | 2001-06-21 11:38:56 | Re: Call for alpha testing: planner statistics revisions |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2001-06-21 09:59:49 | Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users |